Gruber: My 2012 remarks were “a speak-o”

posted at 12:01 pm on July 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

In a sense, Jonathan Gruber’s response today to the emergence of his 2012 explanation for the language in ObamaCare mirrors the attempt to get courts to ignore the plain text of the statute and instead rule based on the most current interpretation. The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn reached out to Gruber to get his reaction to the emergence of the Nobilis video in which the architect of ObamaCare explains that the restriction of subsidies to states with their own exchanges was a rational attempt to coerce states into creating those exchanges, rather than shifting the burden back to the federal government. Gruber calls that “a speak-o — you know, like a typo”:

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.

During this era, at this time, the federal government was trying to encourage as many states as possible to set up their exchanges. …

At this time, there was also substantial uncertainty about whether the federal backstop would be ready on time for 2014. I might have been thinking that if the federal backstop wasn’t ready by 2014, and states hadn’t set up their own exchange, there was a risk that citizens couldn’t get the tax credits right away. …

But there was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo.

In order to believe that, though, you’d have to ignore the plain meaning of the question Gruber was asked, and the plain meaning of the answer he gave. Gruber explicitly identifies states balking at running exchanges as one of the three main threats to the success of ObamaCare, at the 28-minute mark in the full video below. Note too at the time that Gruber stressed in the presentation that ObamaCare shouldn’t be seen as a federal takeover of health care in part because ObamaCare incentivized states to deal with the exchanges, an argument made at least in parallel to the point about the political threat to the law that balking states would create.

The second question after that argument went directly to that issue, with no misunderstanding the point (around 31:20):

Q: You mentioned the health implementation exchanges in the states, and it’s my understanding that if states don’t provide them, then the federal government will provide them. What do you say to that?

GRUBER: Yeah, so these health-insurance Exchanges, you can go on ma.healthconnector.org and see ours in Massachusetts, will be these new shopping places and they’ll be the place that people go to get their subsidies for health insurance. In the law, it says if the states don’t provide them, the federal backstop will. The federal government has been sort of slow in putting out its backstop, I think partly because they want to sort of squeeze the states to do it. I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

This answer is not a “speak-o” any more than the statutory language on subsidies and exchanges was a “typo.” Gruber explained the coercive policy correctly and in detail, along with the stakes involved in seeing the coercion succeed. It’s not a case of just using the wrong terminology, like “market” instead of “exchange.” Gruber clearly understood the statute at this time — in January 2012 — to provide the arm-twisting needed to get states to launch their own exchanges by stiffing consumers in states without them, which would then create more pressure on those states to get them the federal subsidies that they were funding but not receiving.

That is exactly what the plaintiffs argued in Halbig, and what the court ruled to be the intent of Congress as well as the statutory reality of the ACA. Just because that arm-twisting policy failed in its goals doesn’t mean it wasn’t deliberate, rational, and very much a part of the ObamaCare strategy then, and it doesn’t make it a “typo” now — or a “speak-o” either.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

LOL, they aren’t even trying anymore. Honestly, they don’t care what the intent was or what words were used, either in the bill itself or by the people trying to get it imposed on the rest of us. It doesn’t matter. They will do or say whatever they need to say.

mbs on July 25, 2014 at 12:41 PM

That’s the way it’s always been with these people-anything to advance the ball.

No wonder the Left keeps shafting us – we seem willing to go “oh, okay, I understand what you really meant to say, of course it would be unreasonable to expect you to learn to be clear. By all means you can revise that POS law you shoved thru to mean whatever you need it to. “

The GOP is so scared that those voters who never voted for a Republican before might not vote for one next cycle and we might lose.

Isn’t it strange how the farther one consciously chooses to get from the Constitution/legislative procedure the more difficult it becomes to keep everything properly tied down? I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though. rogerb on July 25, 2014 at 12:19 PM

You only have to remember one truth, but lies differ with each telling.

I can’t believe this guy is a professor, and even worse, he is associated with MIT. Who can have any confidence in our centers for higher learning when the professors lie this blatantly? What a black eye for MIT to be associated with this pathetic political excuse of a “professor”.

I guess Article IV of the didn’t really mean “states” where it says “states” and Madison meant that was “interchangeable” with “federal”?

Because otherwise, the whole things would be unworkable?

And if Madison were alive today, the argument in defense of such a ludicrous statement would be it was a “typo”, since of course the implied meaning of “state” included, dually, “federal” because…obvious!

Give me a break.

Has there ever been a more dishonest, corrupt group of people in charge of and supporting an administration?

I can’t believe this guy is a professor, and even worse, he is associated with MIT. Who can have any confidence in our centers for higher learning when the professors lie this blatantly? What a black eye for MIT to be associated with this pathetic political excuse of a “professor”.

parke on July 25, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Ditto for University of Pennsylvania and Ezekiel Emmanual. These guys are an embarrassment. Ben Franklin is rolling over in his grave.

I can’t believe this guy is a professor, and even worse, he is associated with MIT. Who can have any confidence in our centers for higher learning when the professors lie this blatantly? What a black eye for MIT to be associated with this pathetic political excuse of a “professor”.

parke on July 25, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Obama said he was a professor, too!

/Just don’t ask him to back that claim up with proof or you’re a racisssssssssssssssst.

Was Romney right about hiring Gruber to work on Romneycare in Mass-uh-chew-sits?

gryphon202 on July 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Heck, Gryph… I don’t know anymore. Everything seems to be spinning out of control and for the first time in my life, I’m actually afraid of what the end is going to look like. Not so sure we’re going to make it with O at the helm for the next 2+ years.

Heck, Gryph… I don’t know anymore. Everything seems to be spinning out of control and for the first time in my life, I’m actually afraid of what the end is going to look like. Not so sure we’re going to make it with O at the helm for the next 2+ years.

/Exhausted.

Key West Reader on July 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

If the Republicans were actually loyal opposition, I’d hold out some hope. Apparently Republican voters aren’t tired enough of having smoke blown up their asses to do anything of real import or substance at this time.

If the Republicans were actually loyal opposition, I’d hold out some hope. Apparently Republican voters aren’t tired enough of having smoke blown up their asses to do anything of real import or substance at this time.

gryphon202 on July 25, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Agreed. This is an effing clown show – both parties are the same, they represent themselves and their own personal interests. I don’t know, maybe the whole thing needs to just collapse and we can start over. Who knows?

Sheesh, him and Emmanuel, two “architects” of the ACA cannot tell anything straight. The whole law needs to go. It is a bamboozle from the start. They evade and sidestep all the way. Still trying to pass this budget killer off to the masses.

It’s even worse than that. This guy was the author of one of my economics textbooks in college. So his stupidity isn’t just being constrained to public policy — it gets to infect your kids’ minds too.
Stoic Patriot on July 25, 2014 at 12:17 PM

Most of my free time in college, when I wasn’t working or in class, was spent doing independent reading to counter the indoctrination given by the professor and to share the information with my fellow students. I know I helped at least a few of my classmates.

My youngest Son was considering going to MIT, sure glad he dodged that bullet!

Skwor on July 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM

If he was going for engineering as most MIT students do and what MIT is most famous for then it should not be an issue as there are no politics in engineering and no liberal brainwashing… In fact most engineers tends to be more conservative or libertarians…

Yes, but he actually meant to say “I have a nice doggie.” You can’t get away from that with judicial sophistry that reads words for what they mean and not what they’re intended to mean!! … Okay, post-hoc claimed to have been intended to mean–but you get what I mean!

Let’s give Gruber a little help here before he has to face a judge about this little faux pas.

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about itI was thinking about my cat.

No? How about this one (it always works for the Preezy).

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it.Mistakes were made. I have ordered HHS to begin an investigation to make sure this sort of thing does not happen in the future.

Not convincing? Maybe

I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake. People make mistakes. Congress made a mistake drafting the law and I made a mistake talking about it. And shut up.

I have yet to ever see a single liberal (in modern times – last 20 years or so) be honest on any topic at any time.

I ask the same question I always do – if you truly believe you are correct on the substance of an issue, why is it you must ALWAYS lie to support such position? If you were correct, wouldn’t you have honest argument that could be made? That you don’t belies that you believe yourself substantively correct.

It’s amazing how anyone can believe themselves correct when they can never be honest.

Monkeytoe on July 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

“yep.” liberals don’t use logic, morality, or honesty, or anything like that. they just say what they WANT to be true, and then try to get everyone to accept their bs. there are so many issues where liberals do this. their statements make no logical sense but anyone who points that out is labeled a “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “transphobe,” or “evil rich person who hates the poor” or something. liberals get so angry when people burst their fantasy bubble. liberals think the whole world revolves around how they feel and what they want, which is why they make up bs and are adamant that everyone accepts it as “truth.”

Jonathan Gruber: “Listen, I’m an MIT Economist so you really don’t have the right to question me and even though you don’t, just this once I am going to deign to speak to you and admit, reluctantly, that I make a Speak-Easy-O… OK? I was thinking about fourteen other things when I made that impromptu statement and I have it right here in my notes… ‘made a slight mistake on states and exchanges but no one will notice, it’s too complicated for them, so don’t sweat it.’”

Funny how the press did not introduce the author to the American people when the bill was introduced in Congress, but let it appear as if the lord of this world had handed the bill to Pelosi on Mt Sinai

His mouth betrays him.

4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months REV 13

“…the CBO also projected that, within the next several years, health-care reform may reduce employment and worker hours by the equivalent of about 2 million full-time positions. We told you so, critics declare: Obamacare is a job killer!

But actually the CBO did not project lost jobs at all. Job leaving is not the same as job losing. Many Americans who may eventually leave jobs or reduce their work hours will do so by choice to make themselves and their families better off. Voluntary reductions are not a cost of the health-care reform law, they are a benefit.

Consider the 62-year-old worker who hates his job and who would happily retire on his Social Security benefits. Unfortunately, this worker cannot do it if he is married to a 55-year-old breast cancer survivor who does not work, and who in most states has been uninsurable in the individual insurance market before the new law. If that worker left his job, he and his uninsurable wife would face catastrophic medical bills. Now, with health-care reform ensuring his access to affordable coverage, this man is no longer trapped. This is a good outcome.

Rather than make the untenable claim that everyone’s current job is a moral duty, our aim should be to level the playing field in the labor market so people can make decisions to work or not — or how many hours to put in — for good personal and economic reasons, not because they are fettered to an employer health insurance plan.”

“More broadly, Obamacare is dependent upon a maximum number of people buying into it to share the costs, spread the risk, and make it sustainable – hence the individual mandate that forces all Americans to buy health insurance or face a penalty. But eliminating “substandard” individual plans is another way to do this and – this is key – end policy and pricing discrimination.

Take the maternity insurance example.

If you didn’t include maternity coverage, insurers could charge women more than men for insurance, notes Jonathan Gruber, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who helped design the Massachusetts health plan and advised on Obamacare. Why should women be discriminated against just because they are the only ones, biologically speaking, who can bring children into the world?”

Why should you pay more if you get more? Oh, I don’t know…maybe because THAT’S HOW IT WORKS IN EVERY OTHER FREAKING AREA OF LIFE.

Now comes this blatant lying about the exchanges. Three strikes, and this evil chimera, part diplicitous academic and part disingenuous bureaucrat, is OUT.

Let the name of Gruber be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument … Let the name of Gruber be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time.

“I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.”

Taxation without representation? Whom, in other states is representing the interests of residents in states that pay for, but don’t get the subsidy?

If I’m way off base here, I blame the Sapphire and tonic.
It’s Friday night, don’t judge me bro.

When Halbig goes to SCOTUS, they need to show this video and subpoena the bastard.

Let him explain the speak-o and typo crap. Utter nonsense.
.
txdoc on July 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Once the case (or cases) actually reaches the Supreme Court, their decision will be based on the record at the trial(s). Presuming for the sake of this discussion that these videos and statements were not transcribed and/or introduced in some way at the trial level below — new evidence would simply not be elicited or considered by the Supreme Court. If new evidence needs to be introduced, a remand could be in order, but introduction at the appellate level is a big no no.

There are other similar cases in other jurisdictions which are still either at the trial stage, or currently undergoing appellate review by the appropriate Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (e.g., 4th Circuit).

Thus, the Supreme Court would reject out of hand any motion to issue a subpoena at the request of one of the litigants in order to elicit new testimony from Gruber, or from anyone else. Their jurisdiction in this case is going to be purely appellate.

The same is essentially true of the case at the D.C. Court of Appeals level, and they might be inclined to remand the case to the trial court for consideration of new evidence (that is, if Gruber’s statements are indeed “new” to the court and relevant from an evidentiary point of view).

The government, for their part, may try to move at this point to have that three-judge case (Halbig v. Burrell) heard by the full D.C. panel (en banc) before it can be appealed to and subsequently heard by the Supreme Court. Among other things, they need the delay at this point.

My guess is that the Solicitor General and the Obama Administration would very much like for the full panel to overturn that three-judge ruling, and have at least those two Courts of Appeal (Va. & D.C.) in sync. They may well strongly press a motion to that effect. The risk would be that the decision by the 3-judge panel is upheld by the full D.C. Circuit Court. And they also have to be looking behind their backs at the other courts’ decisions, ones which are fast approaching.

The thing is, Appellate Judges and Justices do not live in a vacuum, and in an age when virtually everything is recorded, photographed and posted somewhere, the judges all know they cannot blithely ignore what is plainly evident.

It seems to me that the ultimate resolution of this will come down to an issue of legislative intent.

If the courts are somehow persuaded that the intent of the PPACA, notwithstanding the plain meaning of the text as it stood when it passed, was to somehow allow federal exchanges to provide for subsidies, then they will side with the position being taken by the Administration. It is hard to imagine that, but it is possible. What seems to have happened is that the heat of the moment caused the Administration and the two legislative bodies to pass what they could a bill which limited the granting of subsidies from the federal website.

If the plain meaning of the statute prevails, the Court will call out the HHS regulations as overreaching, and the Obama house of cards will finally all fall down. Without those federally generated subsidies, the PPACA cannot survive.